The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-11-09
Bishop Galloway Replies to Mr.
Davis.
BRooKHAvEN, Miss, Oct. 81. 1887,

BRooKHAvEN, Miss, Oct. 81, 1887.
EDITOR CLARION: In your issue of
October 8, is published some comments
by Hon. Jefferson Davis upon what he
terms "a nominal reply to my (his) open
letter to Bishop Galloway" A few OBJ
servations in response, / ask the privi-
lege of making. To characterize the re-
ply as nominal is not argument, and
will not satisfy even those who sympa-
thize with his side of the question. 1t
is no fault of the greatly honored states
man that his positions were not better
sustained. He unfortunately has con-
sented to the advocacy of cause desti-
Sute OF argument to support 1T, and has,
therefore, added nothing to his well-de-
served fame as a successful controver-
sialist.
| write not for the sake of controver-
sy, but in the interest of moral reform.
1t would not be becoming or convincing,
therefore, to employ offensive terms or
betray personal discourtesy. They are
the weapons of defeated debaters, and
not the implements of diligent searchers
after truth. 1t is easy to pronounce a
reply merely nominal" and with equal
facility / might retort by characterizing
his comments as comical, but they prove
nothing and deceive nobody. If, how
ever, solid and sustained argument can
be adduced to expose the falIacy, faIsity
or danger of prohibition, / am more
than anxious to discover it. Not for a
moment would | consent to advocate a
cause if assured that its triumph would
imperil the integrity of our peculiar
governmental institutions or invade the
sacred rights of the humblest citizen.
Reform cannot be purchased at such a
price. But until then l must adhere to
my profound convictions, supported by
years of earnest study, that prohibition
Is right In principle, in harmony with
our organic law, feasible, and wherever
tried, has been potential for good.
In such spirit / am constrained to
offer few reflections upon Mr.. Daviss
comments on my nominal reply" 1t
will be remembered that Mr.. Davis AZ
cepts the principle of local option, but
rejects the principle of prohibition. By
what logical casuistry or consistency
these two positions are to be reconciled.
L leave him to discover. He objects to
my applying his doctrine of local option
to counties, and insists that it must he
confined to marrow limits" and be sus.
tanned BY a Sufficient maiority:n of
which marrow limits" and "sufficient
majority he says, in his letter of Octo.
Der 10: Meaning such narrow Limits %
would have homogeneity of population.
and such majority as would prevent agi.
tation for the reversal of the decision Nv
another election" In other words, he
admits the right of the people, "within
narrow limits, to decide by vote that
whisky shall not be sold in their midst
provided the population is homogene'
Gus and the majority so nearly unani.
nous as to prevent even the agitation
OF the question of another election. II
Is difflcult to believe that in propound.
ing such political doctrine Mr.. Davis
IS really serious. Coming from a less
distinguished source, it wouldn't com.
mand thought or provoke smile
just now narrow the limits must be in
order to secure such homogeneity and
unanlmity Is not stated. But in a conn
try ike ours, of general intelligence and
independence of thought, the ssIimitsu
must be ludicrously confined-sav 70
one sovereign citizen. OF this novel
doctrine, or rather declaration. one ia
curious to know: LIST, How the asuffi.
clent majority" is to be discovered ex
cept by an election. I'd, Who is to de-
me and decide the sufficiency of the
majority. Sd, Who has prophetic inspi-
ration enough to foretell that with a
certain sufficient majority there will
never be agitation for the reversal Of
the decision by another election Polit-
lcai history is full of changes in public
sentiment, on great questions, though At
one time almost unanimous. some men
change their opinions, and population
changes by immigration, emigration and
otherwise. How, then, is it to be deter.